Re: dynamic states and pseudo elements for inline styles

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:23 PM, James Kyle <me@thejameskyle.com> wrote:
>>> Second, adding the ; to the end of the style blocks is bad.  It makes
>>> the style blocks gratuitously different from stylesheets, and for a
>>> pretty weak reason - solely so that you can freely mix declaration and
>>> blocks, and still have all the declarations recognized in legacy
>>> browsers.  Recommending that authors just put their plain styles first
>>> handles this just fine, *and* is a good idea anyway (it makes it
>>> easier to read), and preserves the ordinary grammar of CSS
>>> stylesheets.
>>
>> That sounds fine to me, I had just been searching for incompatibilities and
>> figured that would be the best way of fitting in. But requiring them to come
>> last seems totally reasonable.
>>
>> I can update the spec to have the {}'s removed, and can work through any
>> problems it may have. Can someone point me in the right direction to do
>> that?
>
> We need to bring this up as a WICG topic; when we get implementor
> interest, it'll be promoted to a WICG spec; when it's mature, it'll
> return to the CSSWG, presumably as a new level of the style-attr spec.

And the first step is done:
https://discourse.wicg.io/t/proposal-expand-inline-style-attributes-to-allow-pseudo-class-element-styling/1812

Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2016 18:58:46 UTC